1951-02-16

STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Benidickson	Fulford
Boisvert	Gour (Russell)
Brooks	Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Campney	Knowles
Cardiff	Leduc
Carter	Lefrangois
Coldwell	Leger
Cote (Matapedia-Matane) MacKenzie	
Cote (St. Johns-Iberville-Parent	
Napierville)	Pouliot
Courtemanche	Richard (Ottawa East)
Dechene	Riley
Dickey	Stewart (Yorkton)
Diefenbaker	Tustin
Fair	Viau-29. (Quorum-10)
RAILWAYS. CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES Messrs:	
Adamson	Lafontaine
Applewhaite	Lennard
Beaudry	Macdonald (Edmonton
Bertrand	East)
Beyerstein	MacNaught
Bonnier	Maybank
Bourget	McCulloch
Breithaupt	McGregor
Cannon	Mclvor
Carter	Mott
Chevrier	Murphy
Clarke	Murray (Cariboo)
Conacher	Mutch
Darroch	Noseworthy
Dewar	Pouliot
Eudes	Richard (St. Maurice-
Ferguson	Lafleche)
Follwell	Riley
Fulton	Robinson
Garland	Rooney
Gauthier (Portneuf) Ross (Hamilton East)	
Gillis	Shaw
Gourd (Chapleau)	Smith (Queens-
Green	Shelburne)
Harkness	Stuart (Charlotte)
Harrison	Thatcher
Hatfield	Thomas
Healy	Thomson
Herridge	Weaver
Higgins	Whiteside
Hodgson James 80709-27	Whitman-60. (Quorum-20)
Messrs:
Argue
Balcer
Balcom
Bater
Bonnier
Brooks
Browne (St. John's West)
Cameron
Campney
Casselman
Cauchon
Cleaver
Cote (Verdun-LaSalle)
Coumoyer
Croll
Decore
Demers
Eyre
Ferguson
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Gauthier (Lapointe)
George
Hansell
Hosking
Hunter
Jeffery
Kent
Knight
Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge)
Lennard
Little
MacDougall
MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) McLean (Huron-Perth) Murphy Noseworthy Parent
Richard (Gloucester) Roberge Robertson Stanfield
Stewart (Yorkton)
Tustin
Valois
Warren
White (Middlesex East)
Whitman
Winkler
Wood
Wylie-50.
(Quorum-15)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Adamson
Argue
Arsenault
Ashbourne
Balcom
Beaudry
Bennett
Blackmore
Bradette
Breithaupt
Brooks
Cannon
Carroll
Cleaver
Cote (St. Johns-Iberville-Napierville)
Crestohl
Dumas
Fleming
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Fraser
Fulford
Fulton
Gingras
Gour (Russell)
Harkness
Harris (Danforth)
Hees
Hellyer
Helme
Hunter
Laing
Leduc
Low
Macdonnell (Greenwood)
Macnaughton
Maltais
Maybank
McMillan
Picard
Richard (Gloucester) Richard (Ottawa East) Riley Sinclair
Smith (Moose Mountain) Smith (York North) Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Thatcher Ward Welbourn White (Hastings-Peterborough) -50.
(Quorum-15)
Anderson
Ashbourne
Balcer
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Messrs:
Beaudry
Benidickson
Beyerstein
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees PUBLIC ACCOUNTS-Con.
Messrs:
Blue
Boisvert
Boivin
Brisson
Browne (St. John's West)
Cauchon
Cavers
Cleaver
Cloutier
Croll
Cruickshank
Denis
Diefenbaker
Drew
Fleming
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Fraser
Fulford
Gauthier (Portneuf)
Helme
Homuth
Johnston
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough)
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth) Larson
Macdonnell (Greenwood)
Major
Maltais
Maybank
Nowlan
Picard
Pinard
Richard (Gloucester)
Richard (Ottawa East)
Riley
Robinson
Sinclair
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Thatcher Warren Welbourn White (Hastings-Peterborough)
Winkler Wright-50.
Pinard Quelch
Robinson (Simcoe East)
Ross (Souris)
(Quorum-8)
Smith (York North) Stuart (Charlotte) Viau-20.

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Applewhaite
Arsenault
Ashbourne
Balcom
Bennett
Black (Cumberland)
Blair
Breton
Cannon
Catherwood
Cavers
Cote (Matapedia-Matane)
Coumoyer
Fulford
Gibson
Gillis
Harrison
Henderson
Higgins
James
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough) Langlois (Gaspe)
Leger
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
Maclnnis
MacNaught
Maltais
McLean (Huron-Perth)
McLure
Mott
Pearkes
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte) Thomas
White (Hastings-Peterborough) -35.
(Quorum-15)
(Quorum-10)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Anderson Arsenault Aylesworth Bater Bennett
Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie)
Blue Breton Browne (St. John's West) Bruneau Bryce
Catherwood Charlton Clark Corry
Cote (Matapedia-Matane) Courtemanche Cruickshank Darroch Decore Demers Diefenbaker Dumas Fair
Fontaine
Gauthier (Lapointe) George Gosselin Gour (Russell)
Harkness
Hatfield
Herridge
Hetland
Jones
Jutras
Kent
Kickham
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough)
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth)
Laing
Leger
MacKenzie
Masse
McCubbin
McLean (Huron-Perth) Murray (Cariboo) Murray (Oxford)
Nowlan
Quelch
Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Roberge Ross (Souris)
Studer
Thomson
Ward
White (Middlesex East)
Whitman
Wood
Wright
Wylie-60.
(Quorum-20)
STANDING ORDERS Messrs:
Boisvert
Boucher
Breton
Casselman
Denis
Gibson
Green

Henry
Homuth
Huffman
Knowles
MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) Monette

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
Adamson	Jones
Benidickson	LaCroix
Black (Cumberland)	Lafontaine
Boivin	Larson
Brisson	Little
Byrne	Mclvor
Dickey	McLure
Dumas	McWilliam
Eyre	Pearkes
Ferrie	Proudfoot
Gauthier (Lapointe)	Rowe
Gauthier (Sudbury)	Simmons
Gourd (Chapleau)	Stick
Harkness	Thomas
Herridge	Weaver
Higgins	Welbourn
Hosking	Wylie-35.
Hunter	
(Quorum-10)

[Stage Direction]
Messrs:
(Edmonton
Balcer Beaudoin
Black (Cumberland)
Boucher Bourget Breton
Brown (Essex West)
Byrne Carroll Cloutier Conacher
Cote (Verdun-LaSalle)
Croll
Fairclough, Mrs.
Gauthier	(Lake	St.	John) Stewart (Yorkton)Gauthier	(Sudbury)	ThomsonGillis	ViauHiggins	Weaver-35.
(Quorum-10)
Homuth Johnston Kent Knowles Lennard Macdonald East)
Maclnnis
McWilliam
Mott
Murphy
Nixon
Pouliot
Ross (Hamilton East)
[Stage Direction]

Messrs:
Boucher	Knowles
Casselman	Murray (Oxford)
Crestohl	Pouliot
Hees	Simmons
Henry	Valois
Johnston	Viau-12.
	(Quorum-7)
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS	
	Messrs:
Balcer	Green
Bater	Higgins
Benidickson	Jutras
Bradette	Lesage
Breithaupt	Leger
Coldwell	Low
Cote (Matapedia-Matane) Maelnnis	
Croll	MacKenzie
Decore	Macnaughton
Dickey	McCusker
Diefenbaker	Murray (Cariboo)
Fleming	Mutch
Fournier (Maisonneuve- Picard	
Rosemont)	Pinard
Fraser	Quelch
Gauthier (Lake St. John) Richard (Ottawa East)	
Gauthier (Portneuf) Robinson	
Goode	Stick-36.
Graydon	
	(Quorum-10)
	PRINTING
(Members to act	on the part of the Commons)
	Messrs:
Argue	Healy
Ashbourne	Hees
Bertrand	Hetland
Beyerstein	Hodgson
Black (Chateauguay- Hunter	
Huntingdon-	Kickham
Laprairie)	Lefrancois
Blackmore	MacDougall
Boivin	MacLean (Cape Breton
Bonnier	North and Victoria)
Breton	Maltais
Browne (St. John's	; West)McDonald (Parry Sound-
Bryce	Muskoka)
Cameron	Mclvor
Cardiff	McLean (Huron-Perth)
Cauchon	McWilliam
Cavers	Murray (Oxford)
Charlton	Robertson
Cruickshank	Shaw
Darroch	Sinnott
Decore	Smith (Queens-
Fairclough, Mrs.	Shelburne)
Ferguson	Stanfield
Ferrie	Stuart (Charlotte)
Follwell	Studer
Fontaine	Tustin
Gingras	Weaver
Gosselin	Whitman
Gour (Russell)	Wright-54.
Harkness	
	(Quorum-)
	LIBRARY
(Members to act	on the part of the Commons)
Mr. Speaker and Messrs:	
Beyerstein	Casselman
Blackmore	Conacher
Brown (Essex West) Coyle	
Carroll	Dechene
Carter	Demers
80709-27£	
Standing Committees
Eudes
Gauthier (Lapointe)
Gibson
Gingues
Goode
Hellyer
Henderson
Higgins
Homuth
Hunter
Jones
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth)
Knight
LaCroix
Laing
Leger
MacNaught
Mcllraith
McMillan
Nose worthy
Pearkes
Proudfoot
Ratelle
Rochefort
Ross (Hamilton East)
Rowe
Sinnott
Smith (Moose Mountain) Smith (York North) Tustin Valois
White (Middlesex East)
Whiteside
Winkler-44.
(Quorum-)

[Stage Direction]
(Members to act on the part of the Commons) Mr. Speaker and Messrs:
Breithaupt
Casselman
Cournoyer
Dewar
Ferguson
Gauthier (Sudbury) Gour (Russell)
Hansell
Harkness
Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge)
Leger
Little
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
MacNaught
McCulloch
McGregor
Ratelle
Richard (Ottawa East)
Rochefort
Simmons
Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Stick
White (Hastings-Peterborough)
Ward-24.
(Quorum-)
Mr. Weir moved: that the report be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT Mr. W. G. Weir (Portage-Neepawa) moved: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the following members, viz: Messrs. Argue, Ashbourne, Bertrand, Beyerstein, Black (Chateau-guay-Huntingdon-Laprairie), Blackmore, Boivin, Bonnier, Breton, Browne (St. John's West), Bryce, Cameron, Cardiff, Cauchon, Cavers, Charlton, Cruickshank, Darroch, Decore, Fairclough (Mrs.), Ferguson, Ferrie, Follwell, Fontaine, Gingras, Gosselin, Gour (Russell), Harkness, Healy, Hees, Hetland, Hodgson, Hunter, Kickham, Lefrancois, MacDougall, MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria), Maltais, McDonald (Parry Sound-Mus-koka), Mclvor, McLean (Huron-Perth), McWilliam, Murray (Oxford), Robertson, Shaw, Sinnott, Smith;
[Stage Direction]
Emergency Powers
(Queens-Shelburne), Stanfield, Stuart (Charlotte), Studer, Tustin, Weaver, Whitman and Wright, will act as members on the part of this house on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.
Motion agreed to.

William Gilbert Weir: That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting Their Honours that this house has appointed Mr. Speaker and Messrs. Beyerstein, Blackmore, Brown (Essex West), Carroll, Carter, Casselman, Conacher, Coyle, Dechene, Demers, Eudes, Gauthier (Lapointe), Gibson, Gingues, Goode, Hellyer, Henderson, Higgins, Homuth, Hunter, Jones, Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth), Knight, LaCroix, Laing, Leger, Mac-Naught, Mcllraith, McMillan, Noseworthy, Pearkes, Proudfoot, Ratelle, Rochefort, Ross (Hamilton East), Rowe, Sinnott, Smith (Moose Mountain), Smith (York North), Tustin, Valois, White (Middlesex East), Whiteside and Winkler, a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Gilbert Weir: That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting Their Honours that this house has appointed Mr. Speaker and Messrs. Breithaupt, Casselman, Cour-noyer, Dewar, Ferguson, Gauthier (Sudbury), Gour (Russell), Hansell, Harkness, Langlois (Berthier-Maskinonge), Leger, Little, Macdonald (Edmonton East), MacNaught, McCulloch, McGregor, Ratelle, Richard (Ottawa East), Rochefort, Simmons, Stewart (Winnipeg North), Stick, White (Hastings-Peterborough) and Ward, to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada has given instructions to apply for leave to appeal to the privy council against the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the cases brought by the Attorney General of Canada and the Canadian wheat board against Jeremiah J. Nolan of Chicago and his agents Hallet and Carey Limited of Winnipeg. These cases involved the question of the ownership of certain barley that had been purchased by Mr. Nolan through Hallet and Carey Limited and which had been vested in the Canadian wheat board under the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act, 1945. The judgment held that the transfer of ownership in the barley to the Canadian wheat board was not authorized by that act and allowed Mr. Nolan's claim to the barley.
[Mr. Weir.)
This litigation involves an important principle that was followed by the government throughout the whole period of price decontrol. This principle was that nobody should be allowed to make fortuitous or speculative profits out of the process of decontrol; in effect that there should be no decontrol profiteering. It is obvious that when commodities have been purchased by traders from producers under a controlled price and then the control is later relaxed, there is great opportunity for profit by traders in the commodity, arising solely from the [DOT]decontrol process, which is quite beyond a normal trading profit. In the opinion of the members of the government, who were members of the House of Commons and also members of the government at the time the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act was introduced and passed by parliament in 1945, it was the intention of both the government and parliament that no such fortuitous profits, resulting directly from decontrol, should be allowed to commercial traders in commodities. This policy was applied with respect to sugar, flax, flour, leather and other commodities where it was found necessary. It was also intended to be followed in the case of oats and barley, and it was to carry out that intention that the barley in question in these cases was to be vested in the Canadian wheat board at the old price, with the option to the former commercial owner to take it back at the new ceiling price. All the commercial dealers in oats and barley except Mr. Nolan of Chicago co-operated fully in giving effect to the principle in that manner.
The National Emergency Transitional Powers Act was drafted to empower the governor in council to provide for a process of orderly decontrol which would not permit the fortuitous profits that I have mentioned. The Court of King's Bench and the Appeal Court of Manitoba, and a majority of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, however, have now held that the wording of the act did not authorize the method adopted by the government to prevent such fortuitous profits in the process of decontrolling oats and barley. The government of Canada is, therefore, seeking leave to appeal from the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada in order that its counsel may attempt to convince the privy council that the language used in the National Emergency Transitional Powers Act was effective to enable these fortuitous profits to be withheld from traders by the method adopted.
Should this appeal not be successful, the government of Canada, being desirous of applying to the decontrol measures in oats and barley the same principles of preventing fortuitous profits as were applied to other

commodities, gives notice that it will, in order to carry out the principle of preventing such fortuitous profits, introduce legislation in parliament confirming the settlements with all of the commercial traders in oats and barley, other than Mr. Nolan, and will, therefore, not recognize claims made on behalf of such commercial traders upon the wheat board or upon the government in derogation of the settlements already made.
Meanwhile the government is authorizing application for leave to appeal rather than seeking legislation at this time, because it feels no exception in favour of Mr. Nolan should be recognized until every possibility still open for judicial determination of the question has been exhausted.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Higgins) asked me the amount of Newfoundland's financial surplus now on deposit with the government. I informed him that the arrangement was, of course, between the dominion government and the government of Newfoundland, and said that if that government had no objection I should be glad to give the information. The Newfoundland provincial government has no objection, and I can say that the amount is $20 million.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 7, to incorporate the Hutterian Brethren Church.-Mr. Viau.
Bill No. 8, to incorporate the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada.-Mr. Hetland.
Bill No. 9, for the relief of John Andrew Hague.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 10, for the relief of Jane Louise Welle Kennedy.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 11, for the relief of Frances Dan-forth Stephens Ross de Lall.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 12, for the relief of Daphne May Hodgson Frosst.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 13, for the relief of Celia Frances Cantlie Molson.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 14, for the relief of Rowland Walter Tyner.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 15, for the relief of Maeve Mary Margaret McPherson Mackenzie.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 16, for the relief of Judith Francis Cohen Besner.-Mr. Winkler.
Private Bills
Bill No. 17, for the relief of Edith Mary Bentley Towler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 18, for the relief of Patricia Galley Mulvey.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 19, for the relief of Ethel Kershaw Warren.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Petrus (Peter) Surkala.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Doris Demree McMullen.-Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I
should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. I am sorry I have not been able to give him notice; the information on which it is based came into my hands only a few minutes ago. It is a report from Dow Jones, and the heading is, "Believed Canadian banks urged to cut down on new loans." The body of the report reads:
A general policy to cut down on new loans is believed to have been agreed upon at a meeting-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is unusual for an hon. member to read dispatches.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will just summarize it. The dispatch says-


Mr. Speaker:: It is just as irregular to summarize a dispatch. Probably the hon. member could ask his question.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would ask the minister if it is true that a meeting has taken place between the governor of the Bank of Canada and the general managers of the chartered banks at which an agreement and arrangement has been entered into that there will be a reduction in current loans.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I understand that on Wednesday the governor of the Bank of Canada had one of his periodic meetings with the general managers of the chartered banks, at which lending policy was discussed. I have not seen the announcement to which my hon. friend refers, but undoubtedly the banks made some statement as to the credit policy which they will pursue with respect to new loans.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask
a supplementary question? Does not the minister agree that it would have been much better if that meeting had taken place some time ago?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a matter of opinion.
422	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



NEWFOUNDLAND SALT CODFISH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question raised by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) yesterday, I wish to state that I am not aware of any exports of Newfoundland salted codfish from ports in the maritime provinces. It is possible that some Newfoundland exporters may be failing to comply with the requirements of the act respecting permits for the exportation of salt fish by leaving Newfoundland from a place other than a customs port of entry. If my hon. friend has knowledge of any specific instance, he may feel impelled to supply the Newfoundland fisheries board with the particulars.
In the second part of his question, the hon. member asked whether I would consider giving instructions so that these entries can be made at the point of export. In reply I should like the hon. member to know that full and complete instructions have been issued and are in effect at the customs ports of entry, where, according to the requirements of the law, all Newfoundland exporters of salted codfish are required to surrender their permits.



PACIFIC COAST-PROTECTION AGAINST ENCROACHMENT BY JAPANESE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: On Wednesday the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) inquired if any action is being taken by the Canadian authorities, similar to that reported from the United States, to assure that, when the Japanese peace treaty is being drawn up, adequate protection will be afforded our Pacific coast fisheries against encroachment by Japanese fishermen.
In reply to the question I wish to say that Canada and the United States are bound by several treaties for the conservation and development of some of our most important fisheries on the Pacific coast, and therefore have a mutual interest in protecting these fisheries.
The departments of the two governments responsible for fisheries have been accordingly in consultation with each other with the view of finding an acceptable method for the safeguarding of our joint interest in these fisheries and having it embodied in some form of agreement with Japan.



CANADIAN PEACE CONGRESS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: I have a question I should like to ask the Minister of Justice-I sent him notice, but I do not know whether he received it-in connection with an item which appears in the Montreal Gazette of this morning, stating that the Canadian peace congress has asked-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. gentleman ask his question?


Gordon Francis Higgins: Has the Canadian peace congress asked parliament to pass a law for the protection of peace, and if so, what is the meaning of it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As my hon. friend has stated, he sent me notice of his question, which was handed to me just a few moments ago as I came into the house very hastily after attending a cabinet meeting. The question which the hon. gentleman has just asked is different from the one of which he gave notice. When he asks me what the Canadian peace congress submissions mean I am afraid I cannot tell him, because I have not yet had the opportunity of reading them. I have been advised that mimeographed submissions have been made by this organization, and I can say that in due course they will be given such consideration as they may appear to deserve.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. H. McMillan for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Drew, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Low.
Mr.  C. E. Johnsion@Bow River: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose last evening we were discussing the subamendment which had been put forward by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). It was my intention this afternoon to point out how the official opposition had suddenly become supporters of government policy, but I find it is not necessary to do so, because the Ottawa Citizen has done it quite well. I shall content myself at this point with reading the heading in the Ottawa Morning Citizen of February 16, which I think is quite appropriate and should be on the record. The heading



IB, 1951

[Stage Direction]
reads: "Claxton lets Pearkes give government's view". Then there is a subheading, "But two P.C.'s disagree with party on army".
That sums up pretty well the sudden change in the attitude of the official opposition. I should like to say a word about that subheading. I think those two Progressive Conservative members deserve credit for standing on their feet in this house and advocating their own beliefs in regard to national defence, regardless of the pressure that may have been put on them by their colleagues.
I should like to refer now to the subamendment, which will be found at page 339 of Hansard of February 13. The subamendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River reads:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following as clause 4:
4. To ensure that a complete program of preparedness including compulsory training in the reserve forces for home defence be executed with the greatest possible degree of equality of sacrifice and service.
Some members have endeavoured to twist the meaning of that subamendment. Time and time again they have used the old hackneyed expression that while it was a good amendment, while it served a good purpose, while it made the nation aware of preparedness, this was not the proper time, because you could not raise hundreds of thousands-I think that was the expression used by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes)-of men immediately. The amendment does not ask that. Others have said that you could not grab people out of industry and place them in the reserve army. The subamendment does not ask for that. In clear language the subamendment says:
... to ensure that a complete program of preparedness including compulsory training in the reserve forces for home defence be executed-
It does not say when. It says:
-with the greatest possible degree of equality of sacrifice and service.
Surely the hon. member who has just interrupted would not say for a moment that we should have any form of military service without equality of sacrifice and service. We have not mentioned any method by which this might be done. That is the responsibility of the government. It is a matter of principle with which we are concerning ourselves at the present time. Surely we do not want a repetition of what went on in the last war. I do not think any member of the house in his right senses would ever tolerate such a situation as existed at that time.
I am going to suggest that the government should set up a committee of the house to
The Address-Mr. Johnston settle once and for all the question of manpower. No other nation in the world of any consequence has to deal with the manpower problem in the way that we have to deal with it. The United States has compulsory service. Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand have it. This problem does not arise for them in times of emergency, and this is the time that we in Canada should settle the question. For the life of me I can never see why politicians and members of parliament would want to make this matter a political football at elections for the mere purpose of vote catching. I think it goes without saying that the question of manpower, although it disunited the nation, was responsible for getting a good many votes for the Liberal government in the elections held during the war. I do not think such a condition should be tolerated. That is why I suggest that a committee of the house be set up to deal with the question once and for all, on its merits alone, in a place where it can be dealt with on a purely non-political basis. As the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said, let us be men and settle the question once and for all on its merits.
Most of those who have spoken in opposition to the subamendment have expressed the belief that the intention is good but the timing is wrong. They have said that the Legion's proposals in their program, "Operation Preparedness", are well intended. They could subscribe to everything else except this one thing, and they expressed the view that its introduction now is untimely. I wonder when the time would be opportune in the minds of those who have so stated. They all agree that our reserve forces are in a terrible condition. They all agree that no proper defence forces are available for this country; yet they say the time is not opportune.
I do not want to prolong the debate. I merely want to say that I believe it is better to be ten months too early than ten minutes too late.
Mr, George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the statements that have been made, particularly those of the last speaker (Mr. Johnston), that there is a great deal of confusion in the minds of some members of the house as to what is actually under consideration at this time. In the first place, it would seem hardly necessary to point out that what is being debated at the moment is the speech from the throne, and primarily the amendment which I introduced in the early stages of the debate. The subamendment, also under discussion now, adopts our amendment and adds another clause which has been discussed by
424	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Drew many hon. members during the past two or three days. To the extent that we are discussing the subamendment, it is necessary to emphasize, and apparently to re-emphasize, that the subject we are dealing with is not national selective service but a very limited form of service. The subamendment refers specifically to service in the reserve forces for home defence.
I must say that I would have thought it difficult for anyone with a reasonable appreciation of the English language to place an interpretation upon the views expressed on behalf of this party by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) which would suggest that they in any way changed our position or indicated any different point of view with respect to the way in which this subject should be dealt with. I suggest that perhaps there are reasons why some of the comments made about the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo might better not have been made. The amendment I moved is an unqualified criticism of the government's lack of leadership at this critical time in our history, and that very amendment, which is adopted in the subamendment, places that criticism before the house. That amendment stands, and we will vote for it. We intend it to convey all the criticism that we have expressed.	s
We have indicated that the amendment we have moved is intended to express condemnation of the government for its failure to provide the armed forces in being which are required to defend our country and meet our external commitments. The subamendment now under consideration embraces that, and adds by way of specific reference a demand for compulsory service in our reserve forces for home defence. We have presented arguments in support of our amendment, and those arguments stand. What we are now discussing is the proposal that our reserve forces be brought up to strength by a form of selective compulsory service limited to home defence.
The hon. member who has just spoken says that we do not want a repetition of the things that happened during the last war. We do not, and we do not want some compulsory form of service that creates an apparent pool of men who are not really available for whatever service may be required' in the defence of this country, wherever that defence should take place. We are not discussing the principle of national selective service. That issue is not before us. No matter how or when it may be adopted, the principle of national selective service, it seems to me, has been settled. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has sought to leave no doubt, as I understand his words, that he will introduce national 

selective service when the evidence supports that course. Having regard to the commanding majority in this house supporting the government, that statement of government policy amounts to a declaration of settled principle. To the extent that those wordfs of the Prime Minister indicate that this subject is no longer to be made a political football in Canada, I am confident that the people of Canada will strongly approve what has been stated in this house.
We are not asked, therefore, at this moment to consider the principle of national selective service. We are asked to support a demand for a limited form of selective service. That raises very simple questions. If these next few months are to be the most critical months in modern history, as we have been told by the Prime Minister; if there is real danger of war, as was stated only two days ago by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), what is it we want with which to defend our freedom and, if humanly possible, to preserve peace by the collective action of the nations of the Atlantic community? Do we need hundreds of thousands of young men and women training a few hours a week in reserve forces, or do we need combat forces in being in the shortest possible time, ready to undertake any military task which may be imposed upon them?
Surely the last is what we need; surely the last is the only thing which faces reality at all. If that is so, compulsory service in the reserve forces would be of no help whatever in meeting that immediate and urgent demand. In fact, it would greatly hinder the effort to create, in being, naval, air and land forces in the shortest possible time, making the best use that our vigour and ingenuity and intelligence can make of the human and material resources now available to us. That, it seems to me, is the urgent task. It is not only days and hours that count. Minutes count, and at this moment there is no time to waste in any diversion of our resources from that immediate problem, no matter what may be the long-term objective or how important that long-term plan may be to the nation as a whole.
Let us in these critical days deal with first things first. The first thing is to get on- belatedly, it is true; nevertheless let us get on-as quickly as possible with the job of creating defence forces in being, not two years from now, not three years or four years from now, which would be the earliest possible hope by training young men and women for a few hours a week in reserve forces. We can tackle that job calmly and effectively and satisfactorily when we have made sure that we have created the forces

which are necessary to meet the immediate tasks we may be called upon to face two months from now, three months from now, or in fact any month between now and next November, when the world will have passed its first great climacteric in this immediate threat of Soviet world conquest.
Let us make no mistake as to the threat that is before us. It is nothing less. The threat is real; it is tremendous, but it is something that can be faced, and something that can be held back. Peace can still be preserved if with all their energy and spirit and determination, which are themselves attributes of freedom, the free nations of the world leave no doubt in the minds of any of the men in the Kremlin that every ounce of strength we have will be put into this great effort of building the bulwarks of freedom wherever those bulwarks may be needed within the next few months.
I regret that anyone in this house should have displayed such bad taste, or in fact should have had the temerity to suggest, that the hon. member for Nanaimo was afraid to face the issue and was straddling the fence. Fear is not a word that has ever been properly associated with his name. Certainly there are differences of opinion, and very sincere differences. My own conviction is that many of those differences are based upon some misinterpretation of what we are really discussing; but let us accord a full measure of sincerity to those who express these different opinions, no matter what party they belong to and no matter what view they express. It is my belief that those who oppose this subamendment are in no way avoiding the immediate and urgent issue that is before this house and the people of Canada. I think the subamendment does avoid the issue. I believe it evades the real and urgent issue now before every Canadian; that is, how are we going to make up for the neglect of our defence forces, and do so in the shortest possible time?
Compulsory service in the reserve forces is not the answer to that immediate, that driving and compelling need. It would establish the very inequalities it is said to avoid. Just let us consider some of the problems it would create. What would be done with the scores of thousands of young Canadians who do not live near any reserve unit capable of giving military instruction in a manner which would justify their attendance? Would you make them move and live in places where there are reserve units? If you would, that in itself would create a substantial measure of inequality, because most certainly it would impose a special obligation upon those who did not happen to live near reserve units, which would not R0709-28
The Address-Mr. Drew be imposed upon those who did live in communities which have active and well-organized units.
That is only one of the inequalities it would create. What of the fact that some communities have as many units as whole military districts in other parts of this country? Are you going to bring the same number of men to every unit now organized? If you do, again you create grave inequalities. Then, what are you going to do in regard to the units which at the moment are so lacking in trained personnel that even now they are not able to send men to camp? Are those units to train men to defend this country? What is it we are really talking about? The statements that have been made would suggest that it is in the minds of some people that by compelling young men-and I presume young women

to train in our reserve forces, we are going to train forces capable of defending the land mass of Canada. There is not a man in this house who has had any experience in training with the reserve forces who does not know that it would be three years at least, training a few hours a week, before you could hope to make young men and women capable of bearing arms in the immediate defence of their country, in the face of the trained forces which might be attacking our soil. In fact, what has happened in the past is that, whenever reserve forces have come into the active forces, it has taken several months of the most intensive training to qualify them to go into action. Although we had very effective reserve forces in this country before the last war, it was two years before those forces had been brought to a state of training that indicated their readiness to go into active service against modern forces with the type of training that those forces get today.
If we need men and women for the defence of the land mass of Canada, then let us not play around with this slow method of training. Let us adopt another course entirely. This is not a system that gives us combat forces ready to go into action. This is not a system that would begin to give that type of training that would defend our soil if, by any unhappy chance, large numbers of enemy forces should make a landing here. Surely it is not without some significance that, although most countries today have a form of national selective service, not one of them, so far as I am aware, has, compulsory service for what would correspond to our reserve forces.
In case anyone may be under the misapprehension that that does not apply in Britain, may I say that the territorial forces in Britain are not raised by compulsory

The Address-Mr. Drew selective service. It is quite true that the reserves of the active army are compelled to take a certain amount of training in the territorial force, but the territorial force is a voluntary one. There are similar forces in other democracies. The moment national selective service is made to apply to units now embraced in the reserve force, it ceases to be a reserve force and becomes a new type of force. It should be approached in that manner if that time comes.
What is the situation with which we are confronted today? Let me review some of the real objections to what is put forward-and, I know, put forward with good faith, with sincerity, and with earnestness. Let me summarize briefly. One: we have not the training staff available to carry this out. Two: we have not the drill halls. Three: it would create a false sense of security wholly unrelated to the urgency of the situation. Four: it would divert attention and divert manpower from the immediate and urgent task of creating forces in being. Five: it would mean an immense withdrawal of manpower at a time when this country is short of manpower to produce those things which nature has made it possible for us to produce for our allies as well as for ourselves. Six: we have not before us in this house, outside of the government, much of the information which is essential to an adequate consideration of this problem. Seven: as I have already pointed out, no other country with a similar dual type of force has yet adopted, and I believe for good reasons, a form of compulsory service in the secondary force.
I pointed out that we have not the essential information. Let me indicate the essential information to which I refer. This government has the advice of its trained general staff. That advice is not available to the rest of the members of this house. There is a general staff for the navy, for the army, and for the air force. In the discussion which has been taking place, we have obviously been discussing the army more than any other branch of the services. May I, for one, say I am convinced that the recently appointed chief of the general staff is one who will command the confidence of every serving soldier and every veteran in Canada. The government has the advantage of the advice of a man who is not only highly regarded by officers and other ranks in this country, but who is equally well regarded in the United States, in Britain and in France. I make that statement with personal knowledge that there is this regard for him.
His advice is something which has a direct bearing on what should be done. The government has the advantage also of the advice

given by General Eisenhower, who was here such a short time ago. May I, as an individual member of this house, express the belief that there could have been no better choice, and that there is no more inspiring commander in the free world today, than the man who has been chosen to lead the Atlantic forces, and who left yesterday for that task. The government has secret information in regard to the allotment of tasks which has been made as a result of the discussion amongst the military representatives of the twelve member nations of the Atlantic community. This is all information which must have a direct bearing on the decisions that are to be made. I, for one, should like to have some of that information. I would hope that, with the appropriate safeguards over such information as might conceivably convey anything useful to the enemy, this house would have a summary of that information to guide our thinking as to the manner in which we should face these tasks.
May I refer to another reason why it seems to me that this is an impracticable suggestion at this time. Last night it was pointed out that in the document prepared by the Legion urging a measure similar to that now before us, the most conclusive reasons were given why it could not immediately be put into effect. In common with some of the other members of this house, I have been a member of the Legion since the first day it was formed. I have an extremely high regard for the Canadian Legion. I certainly wish to commend the effort that the Legion has made to arouse public interest in a subject that is of such importance to the people of Canada. Nevertheless, as was also pointed out last night, the recommendation the Legion now makes is not strictly in accordance with the resolution that was adopted in the full meeting of the Legion at Winnipeg. That, however, is a detail; it does not in any way limit the value of all that has been done in bringing before the people of Canada the vital importance of this subject. But on page 1 of the Legion recommendation there is the answer as to why this particular suggestion would not be practicable at this time, and I quote it to bring into sequence in my remarks my own reasons for believing that it does not meet the situation today.
I quote from the booklet prepared by the Legion under the title "Operation Preparedness":
We have reason to believe that the chief obstacles in the way of implementing the Legion's demands are a shortage of ships, planes, equipment, and even boots and clothing, and the admitted absence of adequate trained personnel, accommodation, and other facilities necessary to any immediate appreciable expansion of the reserve forces.

The Address-Mr. Drew
It seems to me that this statement conclusively demonstrates how ineffective it would be to bring large numbers of young men and women into the training centres of reserve units, because, according to the Legion's own statement, there is not the equipment. There are not the boots, and there is not the clothing to meet the requirements of training of this kind. For these reasons I am satisfied that this proposal would be impracticable. I am satisfied also that it is confusing the minds of many people as to what the immediate and tremendously urgent problem is.
To some extent the suggestion has been made that even if this does not do what should be done, it is at least a gesture. Mr. Speaker, this is no time for gestures; this is a time to face the cold reality that the very survival of western civilization is now at stake. The only thing that will stem the tide of Soviet aggression and preserve peace is preparedness, but it is preparedness of forces that can go into the field, and not a form of preparedness that simply deludes the public into a sense of security that would not actually be afforded.


An hon. Member:: We agree.


Mr. Drew:: I am glad. We shall probably have a unanimous vote against the subamendment. That does demonstrate the value of discussion and the possibility of conviction.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things that has perhaps been overlooked in the discussions which have been taking place is the most important factor in any military or other preparation of this kind, namely, the spirit of the country and the faith behind the steps that are taken. It seems to me that what is suggested now is like trying to prescribe a plaster cast for a man suffering from a severe form of neurosis. There is a severe neurosis in this country at the present time. It is caused by uncertainty and doubt. May I answer the suggestion of the hon. member who spoke last, that far from endorsing the policy of the government and giving it a clean bill of health in regard to what it has done, we have made it perfectly clear that we think there has been shameless misrepresentation of the real situation. We believe, however, that it is the duty of all of us now to try to persuade the government to take the steps that should be taken to meet the situation which has arisen as a result of their own neglect and their own failure to create the equipment, the supplies and the trained forces we need.


An hon. Member:: What are they?


George Alexander Drew: An hon. member asks, "What are they?" I know he asks that with the idea that he is still sticking to this subamendment. They are not forces that are trained a couple of hours a week in remote centres around Canada, but forces that we know are ready to go into combat. They are forces not only equipped to go into combat. They are forces that have the spirit to go into combat. That is the thing that is greatly needed in this country at this time. What is needed most in this country at this time is a faith in our own ability to meet the situation; a conviction that Canadians are able to undertake these tasks just as they have always done in the past, and that young Canadians will not shirk their responsibilities whenever the demand is really made upon them.
In making these remarks I wish to leave no doubt that, as we present our amendment to be voted on after the subamendment is dealt with, it is intended to convey criticism of the government, and we hope that the protest that is expressed will convince the government that steps should be taken with greater urgency and a greater sense of the need for action than has so far been demonstrated.
Certain statements that I made were read into the record, and I wish every one of those statements to remain there as a criticism of the deplorable situation with which we are confronted.
We were told in this country nearly two years ago that the Canadian government had decided to adopt the American calibres of rifles and machine guns and other American standards for our own defence forces. It must have come as a shock to the people of Canada to learn a short time ago that instead of making the rifles and machine guns we needed of the 300 calibre-for that was the decision of the government as announced nearly two years ago-some of the arsenals which should have been making them were making shotguns and other sporting equipment to be sold to the public through the ordinary private channels. It must also be a matter of some concern to the people of this country to know that at the present time, while we have been shipping arms and equipment to other countries, some of it even into the hands of the Chinese communists, we have not all the equipment and the weapons that we need here in Canada. No; we want this problem tackled with the utmost urgency.
Having made these criticisms, however, for the constructive purpose of trying to emphasize the need for action, we do say, and we re-emphasize, that no matter what has happened, the need is great, the need is
428	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fair urgent, and I am satisfied that every hon. member in every part of the house will support the government to the extent that the government demonstrates, even now, that it is really prepared to get on with the job.
I believe that hon. members do want to get on with the job. Just as soon as possible we want to have brought before us the facts in regard to national defence, so that we can discuss them in an orderly debate on national defence and seek to improve the defence preparations of this country by the joint and collective expression of opinion of all hon. members who have ideas to offer.
Perhaps we need not be too repentant about what has happened. In some respects our weakness is our strength. The unwillingness of our country, and other free countries, to abandon the paths of peace is not because of any lack of courage. We cherish freedom so much that we are reluctant to give it up. When we recognize that freedom is threatened, that freedom may he destroyed, I am sure Canadians will show the same spirit and the same courage they have always shown in the past.
We want the government to give the country leadership, not only in the House of Commons but Outside of it-inspiring leadership. Show us the vision and the courage of our forefathers; then there need be no concern about the response of our people in meeting the tasks before them.
I believe with all my heart that our people are ready to face and to surmount whatever trials may be before us in these very critical days, so long as the public is taken into the confidence of the government, and so long as no doubt is left as to the urgent demands being placed upon them. Arouse' in the people of Canada a true spirit of sacrifice; arouse in the minds of our people, particularly in the minds of our youth, the spirit that built Canada from a forest in such a comparatively short space of time. I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that we shall see in that spirit of sacrifice the spirit of a great regeneration of the country that we love, the country we are now striving to protect and to defend.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised that a large man should waste time putting up the straw men that have been put up during the past five or ten minutes, and then attempt to knock them down again. I have never heard as many attempts to misrepresent words as I have since the moving of the subamendment by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) on the 13th of this month. I have never heard as many trying to get away from a hot spot, if one may call it that, as I have
(Mr. Drew.]

in the past few days, when I have witnessed hon. members twisting and attempting to put into the mouth of the mover of the subamendment certain arguments he never advanced, and never even intended to advance.
For the information and for the enlightenment-if such is possible-of those who have taken part in the debate and have attempted to argue against the subamendment, let me read it again:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following as clause 4:
4. To ensure that a complete program of preparedness including compulsory training in the reserve forces for home defence be executed with the greatest possible degree of equality of sacrifice and service.
That amendment does not suggest even one item of detail as to how this should be put into effect. That is the government's business. It is entirely the government's business and, as the majority of the members of the official opposition appear to endorse the government's policy, perhaps the government will have their assistance also.
Time and again during the last few days we have heard members read into the subamendment many things that were never intended to be read into it. It is the government's responsibility. Instead of reading those things into the subamendment I suggest that those members should pass on that information to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and his colleagues.
I have no intention of prolonging the debate. I have tried to point out some of the main misrepresentations hon. members have attempted to put across during the past few days in connection with the subamendment.


Mr. G. S. White (Haslings-Pelerborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly with respect to the subamendment, and state at the outset that I am opposed to it. I concur in every way with the remarks just made by my leader, and with those of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes).
The hon. member who has just taken his seat has read the subamendment and pointed out that there is nothing in it to show how it should be put into effect. That is true. I do suggest to him however that both he and I are in opposition to the government, and that if those who are in opposition make criticisms or proposals, then the very least they can do is to offer some suggestive reasons as to how and why certain things should be done.
The hon. member, if he is fair-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Stanley White: -will have to admit that the proposal is not feasible nor could it possibly be put into operation.
If he will compare the subamendment with the amendment moved by the leader of this party he will find that the second paragraph of our amendment covers the subamendment, with the exception of the words, "compulsory training in the reserve forces for home defence." In the subamendment the mover has included the words "equality of sacrifice and service." Any hon. members who have served in any capacity in the army, in an active theatre of war, do not need any explanation as to what equality of sacrifice and service means. How could anyone say that in world war II there was any equality of sacrifice and service between the man serving in Ottawa, probably enjoying more comforts than he had ever had in his life before, and the troops serving in Italy?
I would say that today there could be no equality of service or sacrifice by having compulsory training in the reserve forces two or three nights a week, on Sundays and holidays, and going to camp for two weeks in the summer, as compared with the sacrifice and service of the Princess Pats who are now going up to the line in Korea. I think it is all too likely that by putting in the words "equality of sacrifice and service"-


Robert Fair: Read the whole thing.


George Stanley White: If the
hon. member wishes to make a speech after I have finished, he may do so. I repeat that I do not think it is reasonable to use the words "equality of sacrifice and service" and to couple them up, in the times that we face today, with the demand that we have compulsory service in the reserve forces for the defence of Canada. I do not think any such scheme could be enforced, because public opinion would not be behind it-and I am sure the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) would say that it is very difficult to enforce a law that the public does not support.
In my opinion any such scheme as proposed by the subamendment would be subject to the rankest discrimination. I am not in the slightest degree criticizing the reserve army in any way. For many years between the wars I served in that force, and I should like to say that those men who today carry on the work of the reserve army deserve great tribute. They form an administrative and training staff which may be of great benefit in the future.
As was so well pointed out this afternoon by the leader of this party, whatever training one may receive in the reserve army must certainly be repeated if he joins the active
The Address-Mr. G. S. White force. Those of us who were here at the time of the last war will remember when we had that super-farce of the thirty-day training period, at the end of which the boys returned home, and then later went into the active force. We know that any training they received in the reserve army, or during the thirty-day period at camp, was disregarded, and they had to begin at the bottom again.
My leader has pointed out so well this afternoon that the government has much information that is not available to us. The statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), which my leader has described as a declaration of policy, has made it clear that at the present time the Prime Minister does not believe that national selective service would be beneficial. He has also made it plain that if conditions should change, then the policy of the government would change. When the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) set out his program he indicated the number of troops he would need and expressed the belief that he would be able to obtain these men for the various services under the present methods being adopted. Personally I do not think he will obtain the men. I do not think having nice soft radio programs in the evening asking men to enlist is going to help. I do not think the advertisements that are being run in the papers from coast to coast are going to induce young men to enlist.
As long as the government continues to assure the people of Canada that everything is provided for and they are satisfied with the present system, as long as the Minister of National Defence expresses the opinion that he feels sure he is going to get the required number of men, then things are going to remain exactly as they are and he is not going to get them. In my opinion one reason why young men are not much concerned about enlisting, whether they are veterans of the second war or not, is that they along with the rest of the public of Canada recall all too well the conscription of world war II.
I need only remind hon. members of the house of the terrible farce of the plebiscite and of the debate that went on in this house on the amendment to the mobilization act. I need only remind hon. members of the utter farce of the thirty-day training program which was supposed to send the men back home and have business as usual. I need only remind you of the home defence army and the crisis that occurred in Canada and in this parliament in 1944 when the then minister of national defence made a trip to Europe and Italy to find out for himself the tragic lack of reinforcements. He resigned when he came back and the new minister of

The Address-Mr. G. S. White national defence stood up on the floor of this house and was cross-examined by various members.
We also remember the humiliating position in which many officers were placed when they had to carry out the methods that were adopted to persuade young men in the home defence forces to go active. These are some of the reasons why young men today are not enlisting. There was no equality of sacrifice or service in the last war and if we adopt any such scheme as is proposed in the subamendment we are not going to have equality of sacrifice or service.
I for one am not going to support any type of conscription that is simply a political backdoor or unfair conscription of the type we had in world war II. I commend the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) for the way in which he dealt with what he called economic conscription, the attraction of women to industry through relief from taxation and the need to remove men in the reserve forces from income tax provisions. I agree with him that the reserve forces should be built up; but, as I said a few moments ago, they will not be built up as long as the government adopts the attitude that everything is fine at the present time.
I go along with thp Legion brief except for the recommendation as to compulsory service in the reserve forces. Personally I do not think the Legion would include such a recommendation in their brief if they were presenting it today to the government. Like others, I commend the Legion for the lead they have given. No doubt they have brought home to the people of Canada in some measure the urgency of the present situation.
I appreciate the remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Harkness) and the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green). Certainly no one is going to question the sincerity of either hon. member. I agree with all their remarks except where they recommend compulsory service in the reserve forces. To me any such scheme would be simply a mockery of the words "equality of sacrifice and service." I think the words used by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in closing might well be repeated, and I quote from page 402 of Hansard of February 15 as follows:
This house and the Canadian people are not yet facing realities, although today young Canadian lads in the Princess Pats are moving up the frozen dirt roads of Korea to the battle line, going to what for many of them means death.
On page two of the Legion magazine which every hon. member received a few days ago appears a quotation which had appeared previously on the cover of the Saturday

Evening Post. This has been quoted many times. This is what Benjamin Franklin said in 1774:
Let us beware of being lulled into a dangerous security: and of being weakened by internal contentions and divisions; of neglect in military exercises and discipline, and in providing stores of arms and munitions of war; for the expenses required to prevent a war are much lighter than those that will, if not prevented, be necessary to maintain it.
In closing I should like to refer to the reference to veterans affairs in the speech from the throne. I trust the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) will have the house set up the committee as soon as this debate is completed and that the terms of reference will be broad enough to cover all matters pertaining to veterans, in particular the question of removing the means test from veterans allowances and the bringing of the veterans allowances and service pensions into line with living conditions in 1951.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate at this time I should like first of all to refer to some remarks made by two hon. members in recent speeches in the house. Yesterday the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard) spent some forty or fifty minutes justifying the procedure followed last year in the public accounts committee. The hon. member is a brilliant advocate and I know that if I had a poor case there is no one I would rather have defending me than he, judging by the defence he made of the procedure in that committee last year.
The hon. member was quite right when he stated that the public accounts committee is a standing committee of the house and does not automatically meet each year, that it meets only when references are made to it. The committee met in 1939, and then not again until 1943. It met in 1944, 1945 and again in 1947. In 1949 it met and held two meetings. Then in 1950 the committee was called again. It was summoned for a specific purpose. The point I want to make is that this committee meets only when it is called together for a specific purpose. At other times the government has called it together to consider certain bills but last year the government did not do so. The committee was summoned at the instance of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) who wrote a letter to the chairman, as the latter indicated yesterday, stating that he wished the committee to be called, and he stated the purposes for which he wished it to be summoned.
The purpose was to consider the expenditures of the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the Department of National Defence. The committee was called for two specific

purposes. Thirty-two meetings were held, and we never got to the point where we were prepared to consider the objectives for which the committee was called together. It seems to me there is something radically wrong when, after thirty-two meetings, the committee having been summoned for a definite purpose, it has not reached the purpose for which it was called.
The hon. member indicated that the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) and myself were undermining democratic government by the criticisms we made of the committee. I do not agree with him at all. As a matter of fact if there is any undermining of democratic government or democratic principles it arises out of the fact that, a private member having asked for the public accounts committee to meet for specific purposes, after thirty-two meetings the point was not reached where a discussion took place of the matters which the committee was summoned to discuss.
I want to point out that I did not say at any time that the committee did not do a good job on the matters brought before it. The committee did a good job on those matters, but they were not the matters which the committee was originally called to consider. Nor did I say at any time that the subjects considered were not important ones. Certainly deciding what form the estimates shall take is an important matter. They were important matters but if the government believed they were they should have called the committee together for that purpose. But when the committee was called together for the purpose of considering the public accounts, for the purpose of considering the expenditures of the Department of National Defence, then the committee should have proceeded with the business it was called to consider.
There were some important decisions reached by the committee. One of the recommendations made was that the annual reports of crown corporations should be submitted to an appropriate committee of the house at each session, and I hope the government will see fit to carry out that recommendation at the present session of the house.
The other matter to which I want to refer is one that was raised on Wednesday by the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Studer). In speaking to the house he indicated that in his opinion it would be advisable for members of this group to proceed to Great Britain, take the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) with them and come back with a payment of 25 cents p bushel for wheat sold under the five-year pool. He said that he wanted them to bring back 25 cents a bushel
The Address-Mr. Wright when they returned from Great Britain and nothing else, because nothing else was going to satisfy the people of Saskatchewan. Of course he was speaking about the "have regard to" clause in the British contract and was suggesting that Great Britain should pay a minimum of 25 cents a bushel to the farmers of western Canada on the 1,400 million bushels of wheat in that five-year pool.
I know that the hon. member should know better than that. He knows that Great Britain only received some 600 million bushels of the 1,400 million in the pool. The British contract was only for four years. There is five years' wheat in the five-year pool. Of the 1,400 million bushels of wheat in the pool approximately 400 million was consumed right here in Canada. Surely the hon. member is not suggesting that Great Britain should pay 25 cents a bushel on 400 million bushels of wheat consumed in Canada to subsidize a cheap loaf of bread for our people having regard to the conditions under which Great Britain is working and has been working since the war. Nevertheless his suggestion means that we should do that.
The government does not agree with that view. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was over in Great Britain negotiating with respect to the "have regard to" clause in the British contract. When he came back to Canada he made certain statements in the house on June 5, 1950, as recorded at page 3221 of Hansard. He said:
The "have regard to" clause reads as follows-
I am not going to read the whole clause. I shall merely read that part of it referring to the particular years, which is as follows:
In determining the prices of these two crop years, 1948-49, and 1949-50, the United Kingdom government will have regard to any difference between the prices paid under this agreement in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years and the world prices for wheat in 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years.
The minister went on to say:
That is the "have regard to" clause in the agreement. I suggest that regard was paid in fixing these prices . . . We went over the agreement while in London. We asked the United Kingdom government what further settlement it is to make on account of the "have regard to" clause. The United Kingdom government took a very strong position that they had fulfilled all obligations under that clause, and so far as the United Kingdom was concerned.
Listen to this:
We agreed on behalf of Canada that considering all the circumstances that was the case.
That is the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Nevertheless my hon. friend suggests that we should go to Great Britain and ask them to pay another 25 cents a bushel on 1,400 million bushels of

The Address-Mr. Wright wheat, 800 million of which they never received at all. Merely to state the case is to show the ridiculousness of the hon. member's position. I will not mention some of the other statements he made in his speech. They were just about as logical as his position on the wheat question.


Mr. Coldwell:: As incorrect.


Percy Ellis Wright: As one hon. member says, "as incorrect". I want to say a few words about the amendment to the amendment moved by the Social Credit group. I have been a member of the Canadian Legion for a great many years. I think that the Legion has done an excellent job in bringing to the attention of the people the situation with respect to the lack of preparedness that exists in Canada today. I agree with their recommendations if they are carried out in the order and in the spirit in which they were made by the Legion. The first suggestion was that we should have a national registration. For the life of me I cannot see why anyone should object to national registration.
I think the mere fact that people are able to carry cards with them showing who they are and where they are from is an advantage to any honest citizen of this country.
National registration is an essential as far as civil defence is concerned. We can never have an effective civil defence organization in this country until we know who people are and where they are. I had the privilege of being in Great Britain in 1944, when the buzz bombs were falling on London. The civil defence organization in that city was really marvellous. The work they did in rescuing people, caring for the wounded, notifying relatives and so on never could have been carried on had they not known where everyone was and who everyone was throughout the country. When a bomb fell in a certain area and certain houses were destroyed, they knew at once who lived in those houses and were able to tell when they had been all rescued, where their relatives were, who should be notified and so on. So I say we can never have a reasonably efficient civil defence organization in this country until we have a national registration.
I believe that national registration should be conducted when our census is taken. We will spend some $9 million in taking the census, beginning June 1. If a national registration were conducted along with the census it would cost only another million or two, whereas if it is not done at that time and a month later or a month earlier we decide to have a national registration and have to set up a new organization to do that work, it will mean an additional cost of many millions of dollars. If the government are interested
[Mr. Wright.3

in saving money they might very well give consideration to a national registration at the time our census is taken. When the census taker comes to my farm he does not only count the number of people there. He wants to know what livestock I have, the amount of grain I am going to sow the next year, what summer fallow I have, and so on. He gets a complete picture of the operation of my farm, and I think a complete picture of the operation of industry is just as essential. I believe that should be done. After the census is taken we should have a complete picture of all the resources of this country, showing our plant capacity, our raw materials, our mines and minerals and all the rest of it, and with that picture we can go on to a complete war effort in Canada.
The second point in the Legion brief is the matter of industrial mobilization. Speaking to the house the other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) indicated the intentions of the government in that regard. He told us that we are going to need more plant and equipment and a greater production of certain basic raw materials; and he told us the method to be adopted by the government in order to bring about that plant expansion and greater production was to give some incentive to industry through accelerated depreciation and capital assistance if necessary. As to accelerated depreciation, that was the method we used to secure greater production during the last war. It was very successful in two ways, both in getting the production and in placing approximately $4,000 million of new plant and equipment, completely paid for, in the hands of industry in this country. That is about the amount of plant and equipment on which accelerated depreciation was allowed during the last war, between 1942 and 1947. Plant and equipment built for the purpose of producing goods and materials to be used in the war were depreciated in some cases at the rate of 25 per cent per year and in other cases at a rate as high as 33 J per cent, so that when the war was over this plant and equipment were completely paid for. Take the case of the Aluminum Company of Canada. That company was able to build and completely pay for plant and equipment worth approximately $780 million during the war. That was paid for by you and me and all the other people in the allied countries who through their governments bought aluminum from that company. _They are talking now of building a new aluminum plant out on the coast which will cost not just $10 million but probably close -to $600 million. Are you and I, as taxpayers in this country, and the taxpayers of the countries of the Atlantic

pact, going to pay for that plant and equipment through the prices we will pay for the aluminum produced and then find, after the war is over, that somebody else owns it? That is what happened during the last war.
I am quite certain that when the Legion stated they wanted national mobilization of industry they did not mean that this mobilization should be carried on in such a way as to give certain small groups in this country complete ownership of all the new plant and equipment we will have to construct in this country if we are to carry on a reasonable war effort during the next few years. I do not think that is what they meant. I believe they meant that there should be some equality of sacrifice in this country. I for one cannot support compulsory service of men in any force unless we have the same sacrifice made by other interests in the country. When that is done I shall be one hundred per cent behind complete mobilization in this country; let no one make any mistake about that.
If we are right in saying that freedom is in jeopardy, as I think we are, if we are right in believing that Russia and her satellite countries are a danger to that freedom, then nothing less than a complete war effort will be sufficient to protect that freedom. If we believe the surest way to maintain peace is through strength, then we should get on with the job and see that we have that strength. But there is more to it than just maintaining strength; you have to maintain the morale of your people behind that strength. I do not think the morale of any people, in this or any other country, can be maintained by the method of giving undue profits to some and imposing undue sacrifices upon others. I think we must have a war effort in which there is some equality of sacrifice, and I believe that is what is meant in the Legion brief. Before I left western Canada I attended a public meeting called by the Legion. At that meeting I said just what I have said here, and I had unanimous support for my stand. I believe that is the position of the Legion; we want equality of sacrifice in this( country right down the line, and unless we have that I do not believe compulsory service in the reserve forces alone will meet our problem. As a matter of fact by that means we will be doing once more what we did in the last war; that is, creating two types of service. I know of nothing that did more to divide this country in the last war than the fact that there were two different types of service. I do not think we should perpetuate that sort af thing. If we are to have an all-out war effort, we should have it right across the board and everyone should have an equal responsibility.
The Address-Mr. Wright
Another matter with which I should like to deal briefly is the matter of the distribution of industry in this country. It seems to me that if we are now going to build new plants this would be a good time in which to obtain a proper distribution. I agree with the hon. members from the maritimes, and the hon. members from western Canada, who have urged the government to do something about the distribution of industry, if only for defence purposes. Look at the position in which we are today. In Canada we have one plant making synthetic rubber, the Polymer Corporation. It is located at Sarnia and the government has invested between $50 million and $60 million in it. The raw material for that plant comes from Oklahoma or some of the southern states through pipe lines. A pipe line has been completed to Superior at the head of the lakes, and in all probability much of the raw material being used at Sarnia will in the future be coming from western Canada. It will be made into rubber and other chemical products, and distributed throughout western Canada.
The minister announced the government's intention of building an addition to that plant at a cost of $8 million or $10 million. It would appear to me that this would be a very good time for the government to consider starting another Polymer Corporation plant in western Canada at the source of the raw material supply. This would establish a chemical and rubber industry in western Canada to serve the four western provinces. This would seem to me to be a reasonable request. One bomb dropped in Sarnia today would completely wipe out the Polymer Corporation and the source of our synthetic rubber supply.
Just before coming to Ottawa I saw an announcement in one of the papers to the effect that the government was contemplating the building of a $2.5 million plant somewhere in the Toronto area for the manufacture of radar equipment. I believe that is an industry which could very well have gone to the maritimes. It is a light industry, and one which does not have a great deal of freight charges. Many of the finished products will be sold to our allies in the north Atlantic, and will be shipped across the Atlantic ocean. Why should we concentrate all of these light industries in the small area between Montreal and the city of Hamilton? It seems to me that at this time we should be considering the distribution of those industries over a wider area in the dominion. By concentrating them in this small area we are creating a housing problem, as well as many other problems. We find the maritime members on all sides of the house, Conservative, C.C.F. and Liberal, informing the government that their people
434	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell have to move to central Canada. Why not send some of these war industries down there? If we do not have to use them for war purposes, that is all to the good, because they will be there to serve the people in those areas.
Let us consider the matter of nickel production. Canada produces between 85 and 90 per cent of the world's nickel, and it is all produced in one small area around the city of Sudbury. One atomic bomb dropped in that area would completely disorganize that industry. There are other nickel deposits in Canada in addition to the deposit at Sudbury. There is an extremely valuable nickel deposit at Lynn Lake in northern Manitoba. The preliminary surveys indicate that there may be an ore body almost as large as that found at Sudbury. We need more nickel. Why do we not develop some of these other areas, so as to distribute our industry and place ourselves in a safer position should the worst come and we have another war? These are some of the matters I wanted to bring to the government's attention. It seems to me we now have an opportunity in Canada of diversifying our industry and encouraging our people to an all-out effort. If we do that, we do not need to worry about the future.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a few minutes of the time of the house in explaining why I am going to vote against the subamendment. When the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) was speaking the other evening he said, among other things, as found on page 358 of Hansard:
I see that in this subamendment there is the recommendation for conscription or compulsory universal training in the reserve army for home defence. As one who a few years ago suffered the agonies of trying to persuade soldiers who had been called up for home defence to volunteer to go and fight alongside those men who were fighting farther afield for Canadian homes. I never want to saddle anybody else with that same problem.
The member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. *Goode) used strong language in supporting that statement. He said at page 402 of Hansard:
That was one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of the Canadian army . . .
It seems odd to me that the member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), while speaking of that last night, associated himself with that view but nevertheless took us to task, as I understood him, because we are not voting for the subamendment which would do exactly the same thing the member for Nanaimo criticized the government for doing in the last war; we are to do this merely because the government has now changed its mind and sees the light. Apparently, that is what


we are to do. We are to vote for this subamendment, because if we do not vote for it we will be voting with the government that has now repented of this error of years ago.
I say "repented" because I was interested to observe that there was apparently widespread applause on the government benches for what the member for Nanaimo said. I was particularly interested in observing that my old friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) joined in the applause. I applaud all the members on the government side for that.
This question of repentance is an extremely interesting question, and could be proceeded with further. If the members of the government started to repent there would be many people inside and outside of this house ready to help them. There are many things for them to repent. If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has things which he would like to repent, I suggest to him, for example, that the Winnipeg Free Press, that great journal which is so often independent in between elections, might be prepared to help him.
One never knows how far a thing like that may go. Take the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier), for example. He is an innocent looking fellow, but one never knows what might happen if repentance got to work on him. One never knows where that sort of thing might end. I do not need to go any further afield in the government ranks.
I do not think it is fair to ask us always to vote against the government. They are not always wrong. I never said they were always wrong. To me it is often a mystery how they can go so often wrong, but occasionally, in the infinite wisdom of Providence, I suppose we must admit that they go right.
I should like to say just one other thing to the member for Bow River, and I apologize for quoting him so often. He did say something about our having our arms around the government. He seemed to think or to imply that the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) had put a kind of general imprimatur on the government and blessed everything that they had done. I propose to take a few minutes to indicate how far off the track that is. I propose to quote just a few of the things which the hon. member for Nanaimo said, because I am associating myself with him and accepting his views; therefore I want to make very clear what I understand his views to be.
In the first place, I understand that in effect he said to the government: You have indicated certain things you are going to do.

This is a time of great emergency. We are not going to do anything to rock the boat at the moment. We are going to give you every opportunity to go ahead and carry out the things which you have in mind. And incidentally the hon. member for Nanaimo could hardly refrain from approving of certain of the things that are being done, because they are suggestions which he himself had made many months ago. But I want to make it very clear that while the hon. member for Nanaimo said what I have just indicated, namely, that we were not going to rock the boat, nevertheless there was no suggestion in what he said-and certainly no suggestion in my mind or I think in the minds of any of my colleagues-that we are in any sense giving a blank cheque to the government; that we are saying to the government, go ahead and do whatever you like and we will never criticize you. On the contrary, I feel confident that what we all have in our minds is that we are going to hold them to the strictest accountability, going to see to it, in so far as criticism and vigilance can see to it, that every effort is made now to make up for the old bad days.
I want to quote a few things. I will not detain the house long, but I do mean to make perfectly clear that the hon. member for Nanaimo, speaking as he does on behalf of so many of us, said that a strict accountability will be insisted on. First of all I wish to read a quotation from page 99 of Hansard where the hon. member for Nanaimo said:
The minister adroitly skated around the question as to how he was going to raise the men to provide for this necessary expansion.
Later on he said:
It would, however, seem to me only common prudence that the government should at this time set up the machinery which may be necessary to accelerate its method of enlistment.
Then he said:
I feel that that review should be carried out at once so that the government will be in a position to change its present method of providing for the expansion which has been indicated, should the methods that it proposes to follow immediately fail, or should the situation deteriorate.
And again he says, pointing out one of the great weaknesses in our position at the moment:
For instance, during this winter we have seen the necessity of sending the brigade which is being organized for Korea to a foreign country.
That is for the purpose of training.
He complains that that seems very undesirable, and he is sorry that it was necessary.
Then I turn to page 355 of Hansard. I wish to point out that the hon. member for
The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell Nanaimo expresses regret at what the government is doing. He is speaking of our amendment and he says:
I frankly admit that the situation has deteriorated rapidly, but there is somewhat of the appearance of a deathbed repentance on the part of the government now when, at the eleventh hour, it seeks to raise far more substantial forces to be ready and in being to meet the obligations that Canada has accepted.
I am not going to detain the house longer. From what I have read I think it is perfectly clear that there is no suggestion of any kind here of carte blanche, or of saying everything is all right. It is merely a question of saying, we will not rock the boat, we will give you a chance to see what you can do. It does not mean we are giving up criticism. As a matter of fact I would like to voice one criticism here myself. I feel myself greatly troubled when I read the advertisements which are'still being used for the recruiting of men for the active army. Why do I say that? I say that because it seems to me the criticism which we have made is justified, viz., that there is a want of moral force, that there is a failure to create a sense of urgency. I think it is true and until the government does that we cannot expect them to succeed in the task which they have set for themselves.
For instance, I have here an advertisement which reads in part as follows:
Young men are needed immediately as radioradar, aircraft, instrument and armament technicians in the Royal Canadian Air Force.
Later on it says:
You can start now your career in the great field of modern aviation. The training is thorough: the opportunities are good.
Not a word about fighting.
I do not want to be unfair about this. There are other advertisements which do refer to the defence of the country. There are other advertisements which do not so wholly stress opportunity; but nevertheless it seems to me there is precious little putting straight up to the young men of the country the duty and urgency which faces them. It was not an advertisement of that kind which induced the minister himself to join up many years ago as a young man.
I submit that these advertisements are- well, I do not want to use a strong word. I find them rather humiliating. They are humiliating because it seems to me they are putting enlistment on the ground of selfinterest, on the ground of getting a career.
Here is another one. This is addressed to the students of the Royal Military College. Perhaps I should be frank enough to say that I may be a little prejudiced here because as a boy I was at Queen's university in Kingston,

The Address-Mr. J. M. Macdonnell and the Royal Military College was there. They had fine uniforms, and of course we always felt that they had a great advantage over us with the damsels of Kingston. For that reason I may have been a little unfair to them since. However that may be here is an advertisement entitled:	"Training for
leadership." I understand that it is inviting applicants to enter on a four-year course. I have no criticism of that except to wonder whether a four-year course in a military institution at a time of great urgency should be of the nature that we find here.
Let me read this advertisement. Let me say again that I do not want to be put in a position of making captious criticism. The inducements held out are first of all sports. This is what it says:
Sports play a large role in the activities at Canadian service colleges.
Then there is a picture of some fellows on the ice. As a matter of fact, one of them is a very big, burly fellow. He reminds me a bit of the fellow who gave me an awful licking in Parry Sound-Muskoka. We read further:
The Canadian service colleges provide education of university standard plus military training that emphasizes academic proficiency, character building, personality and physical development. It is a combination which helps develop valuable qualities of inner discipline and leadership.
I am all in favour of education and I am all in favour of these other qualities, but I do find myself just a little questioning whether an advertisement of that kind, which no doubt will be read by other people who may be thinking of going into the forces, when they reflect that this is inviting people to come into a four-year course, will create that sense of urgency. I have a little doubt about it.
I shall not detain the house longer. I just wish to say that there are reasons to doubt whether even yet any atmosphere of real urgency has been created; whether there has been any atmosphere of the sense of duty which in two wars has taken people into the armies. I admit quite frankly that when you are not actually at war it is more difficult than when a war is on; and yet I think it could be easily argued with considerable cogency that the danger here is greater than in either world war I or world war II. We never faced in 1914-1915 or 1939-1940 the possibilities that we face now. It was not possible then to talk calmly and factually about the possibilities of air raids on the nickel company or the aluminum company. That was not dreamt of in our philosophy then. Today it is, and for that reason I say that while we may argue we have a greater urgency and a greater danger than we had in 

the early years of the other wars, yet somehow we have utterly failed to create anything like the same feeling in the masses of the people. So I say, coming back to what the hon. member for Nanaimo said a while ago, I associate myself with him in saying that we are going to do nothing to rock the boat. I say also that we will hold the government responsible, and that we see at the present time many things which disturb us a good deal and make us wonder whether even yet there is the moral atmosphere in this country which will produce the spirit we need.


Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I believe members of the Social Credit party are men who will listen with an open mind, and that there is a possibility of convincing them that they are wrong. There-' fore I rise to speak on the subamendment.
I also go so far as to say that I believe there are members in the Liberal party, particularly the younger ones who, if convinced, would almost forget a position of parliamentary assistant and vote the way their conscience would dictate, rather than the way their party dictates.
On one page of a newspaper published yesterday were certain headlines. The first, attributed to Mr. Churchill, was, "Government Incompetence Charged". Reading down the column we find it states that in the British isles they have eighteen months of compulsory training and, in the belief that war is imminent, they see that they must step up their preparedness so that war can be averted.
Another article is headed, "Would Divert Canadian Force to Eastern Area". This article goes on to say that a noted British strategist suggests that Canadian forces and other forces of the commonwealth closer to the Orient and to Asia should be diverted to that area.
The next headline reads: "Canadian Troops Moving Up." Another dealing with the United States reads, "Present Plans for Six Divisions."
All these are on one page. It does not say that communist forces have invaded Canada, but I believe that will be necessary before this government awakens to the reality of the situation. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has already placed on record, and it has been quoted in the house, a true picture of the urgency of the situation facing the United Nations through the action of an enemy who has not wavered in any way from his intentions to conquer the world by using any means at his disposal.
In the House of Commons the government has the power to permit an enemy to massacre the people of Canada; it also has the power to

try to prevent any such catastrophe. Is the government using the power vested in it by the voters during the last election-and in no uncertain terms?
Some members in the House of Commons- and I am sure someone will say that in this I am included-like to speak without first considering whether or not what they are going to say will be understood. I believe that the mover and seconder of the subamendment wanted to speak without being misunderstood; but I must say that their subamendment, which seeks to amend the amendment offered by the Progressive Conservative party, is difficult to understand. If one may accept the statements of the Secretary of State for External Affairs there is no time for procrastination or to go into details in discussing motions or amendments to the address in reply. There is no time to discuss in detail any amendments that have not been thoroughly thought out.
I believe that when the top men in the Canadian Legion prepared their plea to the parliament of Canada they had not thoroughly discussed the proposal. I believe I am safe in saying that there were thousands of veterans who had never heard of the Legion's proposals until they appeared in the press, and there are still thousands of them who do not understand their meaning.
Those proposals however have at least served a great purpose in that they have brought home to most members of parliament just how seriously leading members of the Legion are taking the Canadian situation, and Canada's position in world affairs today. The Legion's request is based upon information available to the average citizen, such as the daily newspapers, conversations with friends in the Department of National Defence or with those who are connected with the economy of the nation.
As a result of what they learn, people become agitated. They call meetings, and finally in a protest to the government state sincerely what they believe to be correct. As I have said, although I do not agree with the subamendment, I certainly agree with the thought behind it, and I am convinced that because of the actions of the veterans of Canada most members of parliament have had a rude awakening regarding the feelings of a tremendous mass of our citizens.
How the Secretary of State for External Affairs could make the statements he has made in the house and at public meetings outside the house, and fail openly to denounce the Liberal government for its lack of preparedness-as he knows is the case-is
The Address-Mr. Ferguson beyond my comprehension. He should denounce his associates in the Liberal party.
The subamendment of the Social Credit party is now before us for consideration. I am sure the intentions behind it were quite sincere. However, why they have not withdrawn it, in the face of the convincing and positive statements indicating that their suggestion is unworkable, I do not know. I cannot see what the profit would be to them to insist upon the subamendment. Surely they must be convinced that at least a great majority of the Progressive Conservatives want action. They are desirous that something be done in keeping with what is being done by the other members of the United Nations. They are desirous that something be done to call the attention of Canadians to the realities of the world situation. It is the desire of the Conservative party that this government take immediate action to prepare Canadians in all walks of life so that they can build the position that they may be called upon to build in an effective and efficient manner.
The subamendment we are being asked to approve reminds me of a man that might rush into a grocery store for a can of soup. He would say to the grocer, "I would like a can of soup". The grocer says, "Will you have Jones's soup?" The man has never heard of that soup; he does not know what is in the can; he is not sure of its quality. If the grocer had mentioned Campbell's soup he would have said, "Oh, yes, I know the quality of that soup, I will take it". This amendment is like an empty can. If it has any contents, we do not know what they are. Because we of this party will not wholeheartedly support that empty can of soup or soup without quality we are told that we are siding with the Liberal government.


Mr. Johnston:: The Citizen said that.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I understand that the Citizen said that we were no different from the man entering the grocery store. Even if the Citizen wants us to buy Jones's soup, we will take Campbell's soup or some other well-known brand and we will be satisfied. We are not going to take the other in order to satisfy some newspaper, or some Social Credit amendment. We will want to know where we are headed before we give wholehearted support to this. We are not like the members of the Liberal party.
If the Social Credit amendment had suggested national registration so that those in power who are empowered to act would be able conscientiously and correctly to make use of all manpower for all the purposes necessary, make use of native born Canadians and new Canadians who have arrived at our
438	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Ferguson shores within the last 20 years, we would have been in agreement. If this was a solid subamendment I for one would vote one hundred per cent for it. I would then be indicating my desire to see this country placed on a footing where we could instantly arrive at the usefulness of all our citizens, whether in the armed forces, industry or otherwise.
The task of obtaining necessary information with regard to our manpower and its qualifications and capabilities would be tremendous, but the information received through national registration would be valuable and it is of the utmost necessity that we have that information. Yesterday the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) said that there was practically no available manpower, that most people were working. That is quite true. When we consider our present situation in my opinion there are many people spending their time making articles that are of very little use.
I know of one manufacturer who employs a large number of people making hassocks. Those are the things that you put in the centre of a room to stumble over when you come home a little intoxicated. There is no need for those articles and if they were not produced it might save a few broken necks in the early hours of the morning. If we had a national registration we could say to the man making these hassocks that imperil people's lives, "They are not necessary as you cannot throw them at the Koreans with any effect because they would just bounce off, but if you toss a Mills grenade we know what the results will be. We suggest that you stop making these useless articles and get into the army or into a Mills grenade factory where you will be producing results".
The hon. member for Cape Breton South said he wanted equality of sacrifice. He is quite right. We should never have another war in which every man or woman does not participate in equality of sacrifice. In my opinion the munitions worker should receive the same remuneration as the man in the front lines. The producer of every commodity necessary to defeat the enemy or avert war should work on an equal basis. I believe that would be workable, although it may not be. If it is workable, that is what should be done.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South suggested that some incentive to work should be given to men and women receiving old age pensions by forgiving them a tax. He suggested that married women should be given an incentive to work for their country by being forgiven a tax. I cannot agree with that. If a man or woman needs a mercenary incentive to put his or her shoulders to the


wheel when our enemies have us by the throat, then I say they should not be called Canadians. Surely there is incentive enough for everyone to do his utmost without his having to be forgiven a tax.
The leader of the bull moose party, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), has given us some enlightening information about the failure of the Liberal party during the last war in its handling of the affairs of this country, particularly the conscripting of manpower. I agree with his statement one hundred per cent. No greater mess of trying to get men into the army in order to defend this country has ever been made than that created by the Liberal government, of which the hon. member for Temiscouata is still a member. When the crisis was over he moved his seat from this side of the house right back among the incompetents. If I were the hon. member and knew that what I had said was true I would not want to sit with that group as long as he has and brag about it.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) could have spent all his time last night and today on a further explanation of why we should support the subamendment instead of trying to harangue and upbraid other members for holding the opinion that his subamendment was an unknown quantity and had nothing in it that other members could really vote for. We are all entitled to our opinions in this House of Commons, and irrespective of whether or not we agree I do not think it behooves any man to try to pull the other fellow apart severely thereby glossing over his own glaring mistakes.
The amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) certainly leaves nothing further to be said by our party to indicate our opinion of the negligence of the Liberal government to failing to fulfil its duty, having regard to world conditions and how Canada fits into that picture. The suggestions he made in his speech as to what can and should be done, and the rapidity with which these things should be done, are very plain and vivid. I should like to see members of the Social Credit and C.C.F. parties, and Liberal members who can forget the vision of a parliamentary assistant's job, realize the seriousness of our situation today and vote as they should vote in defence of the people who sent them here believing that would be their attitude when they stand to be counted. I believe it is time that members of the Liberal party threw aside party politics. They should stand up and be counted.


An hon. Member:: We will.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: By their votes they should express their opinion of the lack of action on
43S

the part of the government and the necessity for such action, in order to demonstrate that members of the House of Commons are fulfilling their positions as they are supposed to on behalf of the people of Canada. Even if we take the munitions we make and throw them into the ocean, if by making them we can avoid war, if by adopting national registration immediately we can show our enemies that we mean business and will not tolerate further aggression in any part of the world this side of the iron curtain, I will be behind it. If any group of members in this house will move any amendment or submit any proposal to demonstrate that the government of Canada is trying to do a job, Julian Ferguson will be behind that motion one hundred per cent.


An hon. Member:: Good old Julian.'


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am sick and tired of double talk when the people of Canada expect more.


Mr. Sinnolt:: Take a good dose of Liberal medicine.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You will be able to voice your opinion when you vote in the House of Commons, if not by your tongue. Let us hope that you will do the right thing for the people rather than for your party.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Speaker, I promise to be very brief, and I undertake to keep that promise. Before leaving St. John's to attend this session of parliament, with three other members of the house, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne), the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) and the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter), I attended a meeting of the St. John's branch of the Canadian Legion. At that time the brief of the Legion was discussed. I felt that I should support it, and I told them so. I now find that I am not in a position to support that part of the Legion's brief dealing with compulsory service in the reserve forces, and for the same reasons that I am going to enumerate I cannot support the amendment to the amendment, for compulsory service in the reserve forces for home defence. Legion officers from Newfoundland who attended the convention of the Legion last fall informed us at that meeting that the resolution passed last fall was for compulsory service in the active forces, and that the resolution now in the brief is a very much watered down version of the original. That statement was confirmed last night by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross), who attended the convention.
I have had no experience in the services. I have not been long enough in Canadian politics to have developed prejudices on this
The Address-Mr. Higgins particular subject. For those reasons I believe I may be in a better position to judge this issue in a more unprejudiced manner than most members of the house. I have thirteen reasons, which I shall give you briefly, why I cannot support that part of the Legion brief dealing with this subject, or the subamendment.
1.	The commanding officers of the Newfoundland reserve regiments are convinced that the present form of training in the reserve services is practically useless, and that the only proper way, if compulsory training were to be introduced, would be for continuous service of not less than six months. Any shorter period would be of very little value. That view has been endorsed by a number of speakers during the course of the debate.
2.	The government's defence program had not been announced when the Legion brief was submitted.
3.	The brief states that a complete national registration must first be carried out.
4.	Before national registration can be carried out the proposed manpower council to be set up by the government must make a survey and report.
5.	The government, in announcing its decision against adopting compulsory service, as intimated by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) last week and by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) last night, has received the advice, as my leader said today, of General Eisenhower and General Mark Clark of the United States army; the advice of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), following consultation with the foreign ministers of the North Atlantic treaty organization; the advice of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), following his recent discussions with the commonwealth prime ministers in London; and finally, as my leader said today, the advice of the chief of the general staff and his officers.
6.	I am satisfied the government policy is correct for the reasons outlined by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), himself a gallant and distinguished soldier of very considerable experience, and as was also outlined this afternoon by my leader.
7.	The cost of putting the program into effect, in comparison with its value.
8.	The time that would be required to make it workable; because as it is being carried on now, a couple of evenings a week, it is not worth the money being spent.
9.	The effect on industry of compulsory service of the type that would be necessary.

The Address-Division
10.	The grave possibility of cutting down recruiting for the active services by such a program.
11.	The killing of the spirit of those so inducted for compulsory reserve service.
12.	The very serious possibility of the diversion of equipment from European nations as a result of having to equip reserve forces on a large scale.
13.	This is a reason which I must confess strikes me as extremely important: the false sense of security that would permeate the country as a result of the adoption of such a program.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that the policy of the government is sound, and I intend to vote against the subamendment. In conclusion, if I may leave the subject for a moment, I would recommend to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) the establishment of an active service regiment in Newfoundland. Colonel O'Driscoll, officer commanding one of our reserve regiments and a soldier who served with distinction in the past two world wars, strongly advocates this policy, and claims great numbers of men of the highest calibre would volunteer immediately for such a force. Remembering the glorious traditions of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, this can be easily understood. Moreover, it can also be understood that for sentimental reasons our boys would prefer to be identified with a regiment from their own province.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the house wants a recorded vote on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: No.


George Alexander Drew: Yes.



APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S, St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:
That this house will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of the supply to be granted to His Majesty.
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That this house will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: the adjournment of the house.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put I should like to ask the Prime Minister what the order of business will be on Monday.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Under the standing order,. Monday is a private members' day. We will have to take up first the private bills, then questions and notices for the production of papers, then notices of motions and then public bills. We will follow the order indicated in standing order 15.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 6.20 p.m.

Monday, February 19, 1951